菩薩戒義疏 2.9

2.9

第六、說四眾過戒。說是談道之名，眾謂同法，四眾過者七逆十重也。一以抑沒前人，損正法故得罪也。此戒七眾同犯，大小乘俱制。大士掩惡揚善為心，故罪重也。上者第二篇，中者第三篇，下者第七聚，聲聞法如此，與菩薩有異也。文句同前。此戒備六緣成重：一、是眾生，二、眾生想，三、有說罪心，四、所說罪，五、所向人說，六、前人領解。一是眾生者，上中二境取有菩薩戒者方重，以妨彼上業故。無菩薩戒，止有聲聞戒，及下境有戒無戒，悉犯輕垢。此戒兼制，以妨業緣。文云「在家菩薩」即是清信士女，「出家菩薩」是十戒、具戒。又言「比丘、比丘尼」，一云猶是出家菩薩具戒者耳，亦云是聲聞僧尼。若說此人重適亦犯重。此是行法勝者，亦損深法故。二、眾生想，有當、有疑、有僻，大意同前。三、說過者，有兩：一、陷沒心，欲令前人失名利等；二、謂治罰心，欲令前人被繫縛等。此二心皆是業主，必犯此戒。若獎勸心說及被差說，罪皆不犯。四、所說過，謂七逆十重。稱犯者名字，在此戒正制。若謂治罰心，在第四十八破法戒制。若說出佛身血、破僧，依律部本制，向僧說是謗僧，知出血等事希故輕，此正制向無戒者說，應得重。若重罪作重名說，是事當義；作輕名說，是論則失當義。但今心重事重，悉同犯重，此是名僻。若事僻者，實輕謂重則犯重，實重謂輕則罪輕，以其心謂輕重故。若作書遣使，一云同重，二云罪輕。然犯七逆十重，前人失戒，失戒後說，但犯輕垢。五、向人說，謂上中二境無菩薩戒，向說犯重，損法深故。為下境悉輕，毀損不過深。文云：「菩薩聞外道二乘說佛法過，應慈悲教化，而反自說」，即是向彼人說，損辱為甚。六、前人信解己所說口業事，遂據此時結罪。結罪多少，一云隨人，二云隨口業。

The sixth is the precept against speaking of the faults of the four assemblies. 'Speaking' is the designation for discussing and talking; the 'assemblies' mean those of the shared Dharma; the 'faults of the four assemblies' are the seven heinous offenses and the ten major offenses. This incurs an offense primarily because it suppresses the other person and harms the true Dharma. The seven assemblies are equally capable of violating this precept; both the Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna proscribe it. A mahāsattva's mind is to conceal evil and make known the good, hence the offense is major. In the śrāvaka Dharma, the superior offense falls under the second division, the intermediate under the third division, and the inferior under the seventh category; such is the śrāvaka Dharma, which differs from that of the bodhisattva. The textual phrases are the same as before. This precept constitutes a major offense when six conditions are fully present: first, it is a sentient being; second, the notion of a sentient being; third, the intention to speak of offenses; fourth, the offenses spoken of; fifth, the person to whom they are spoken; sixth, the other person understands. Regarding the first, that it is a sentient being: among the superior and intermediate objects, only those who possess the bodhisattva precepts constitute a major offense, because one obstructs their superior karma. If they lack the bodhisattva precepts and possess only the śrāvaka precepts, or for inferior objects whether they have precepts or not, it all incurs a minor defilement infraction. This precept concurrently proscribes it because it obstructs the conditions for karma. When the text says 'lay bodhisattvas', it refers to laymen and laywomen of pure faith; 'monastic bodhisattvas' refers to those with the ten precepts or the complete precepts. It also says 'bhikṣus and bhikṣuṇīs': one interpretation says this still refers to monastic bodhisattvas who have the complete precepts; another says it refers to śrāvaka monks and nuns. If one speaks of this person's major offenses, it likewise constitutes a major offense. Because these are beings of superior practice, it likewise damages the profound Dharma. Second, the notion of a sentient being includes correct, doubtful, and mistaken notions, the general meaning being the same as before. Third, regarding speaking of faults, there are two intentions: first, an intention to ruin them, wishing to cause the other person to lose fame, gain, and the like; second, an intention to punish, wishing to cause the other person to be bound, restrained, and the like. Both of these intentions are masters of the karma and necessarily violate this precept. If one speaks with an intention to encourage and admonish, or speaks when assigned to do so, no offense is incurred in either case. Fourth, the faults spoken of refer to the seven heinous offenses and the ten major offenses. Naming the offender's personal name is what is directly proscribed in this precept. If it is with an intention to punish, it is proscribed in the forty-eighth precept against destroying the Dharma. If one speaks of shedding the Buddha's blood or causing a schism in the Saṃgha, according to the original proscriptions of the Vinaya texts, speaking of it to the Saṃgha slanders the Saṃgha; knowing that matters such as shedding blood are rare, it is of lesser gravity; here it directly proscribes speaking to those without precepts, which should incur a major offense. If one speaks of a major offense using a major designation, that is correct in fact; if one speaks using a minor designation, in discourse this loses its correctness. Yet here, if the mind regards it as major and the matter is major, both alike constitute a major offense; this is an error in designation. As for an error in fact: if it is actually minor but thought to be major, one incurs a major offense; if it is actually major but thought to be minor, the offense is of lesser gravity, because of what one's mind considers minor or major. If one writes a letter or dispatches an emissary: one interpretation says it is equally major; the second says the offense is of lesser gravity. However, when someone commits the seven heinous offenses or the ten major offenses, that person loses the precepts; speaking of it after they have lost the precepts incurs only a minor defilement infraction. Fifth, the person to whom it is spoken refers to those within the superior and intermediate objects who lack the bodhisattva precepts; speaking to them incurs a major offense, because the damage to the Dharma is profound. Speaking to inferior objects is of lesser gravity in all cases, as the vilification is not excessive. The text says: 'If a bodhisattva hears non-Buddhists or followers of the two vehicles speak of faults in the Buddha-Dharma, they should teach and transform them with compassion; yet if, on the contrary, they speak of them themselves'—this means speaking to such persons, which inflicts the greatest damage and disgrace. Sixth, when the other person believes and understands what one has spoken, the vocal karma is accomplished, and the determination of the offense is based on this moment. As to the quantity of determined offenses: one interpretation says it is according to the persons; the other says it is according to the vocal karma.